/r/libertarian, whats up with the attitude?

booksandpowertools · 1 day

I appreciate the benefits of the no moderation thing but due to the huge influx of trolls and statists it seems prudent to disable the downvote button.

You can't disable the downvote arrow; it is built into the core of reddit.

Some subreddits hide it via CSS, but one can easily circumvent this minor inconvenience by using RES, a mobile app, disabling CSS, deselecting "allow reddits to show me custom styles" in your reddit preferences, etc.

continuityxerror · 1 day

This issue comes up quite often. Williams here is presenting the age-old argument between negative rights and positive rights.

I agree with Williams here in his definition of a negative right paradigm (as libertarians often do), but we have to understand that the people touting "X is a right" are reasoning under a completely different definition of "rights".

The problem with the term "rights" itself is that there is absolutely no consensus on their origin, meaning or applicability.

Any time the term "rights" surfaces in a discussion the question must be asked: Which definition of "right" are you talking about? Positive or negative rights? Natural or legal rights? Without this clarification, any discussion of "rights" will go nowhere, because very likely you are arguing from diametrically opposed premises.

Personally, I think "rights" is a useless phrase that has more emotional baggage associated with it (on all sides) than anything else.

Edit: Case in point, this thread in the Justin Amash AMA.

temnota · 4 days

Libertarianism is a philosophy, not a man.

Also, this post is against redditquette, FYI.

thoughtbludgeon · 5 days

...And then stop voting.

planesforstars · 7 days

We nevertheless need a government in order to protect ourselves against the bad minority--mainly sociopaths.

I am much more concerned with the sociopaths who have murdered, maimed, displaced, caged and afflicted more human beings in the past century than all "private" sociopaths combined (by many magnitudes). Moreover, they commit these atrocities under the pretext of the protection you deem them worthy of.

People working together voluntarily are more than equipped to handle "the bad minority".

planesforstars · 7 days

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one."

-Robert LeFevre

Recommended: Robert Higgs, If Men Were Angels: The Basic Analytics of the State versus Self-government

ronpaulkid · 7 days

Are we for small government or no government?

It depends on what kind of libertarian you are; the liberty movement is quite large with a variety of philosophical interpretations, from minarchism to anarchism.

I'm okay with relabeling myself to a more precise definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism

ronpaulkid · 7 days

I call them what they are: criminals, robbers, murderers, kidnappers and sociopaths who do not transcend morality and have no "right" to initiate violence against other human beings just because they claim that "right" for themselves.

dadoctordonna · 8 days

All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

-Ayn Rand (1971)

go1dfish · 9 days

Two wings of the same bird of prey.

brown3jh · 10 days

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/search?q=books&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance

smudgeservices · 12 days

When will libertarians stop referring to these people as "representatives"?

charbo187 · 12 days

We should ban illegal drugs.

tkwelge · 13 days

/r/voluntarism

/r/libertarian_theory

/r/agorism

/r/anarcho_capitalism

/r/marketanarchism

/r/libertarianleft

etc...

bambam93 · 13 days

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchism

spatchcock · 13 days

There is a term for this.

Eschomp · 14 days

Right, so we agree: State-sponsored privilege is the problem, not the solution.

Eschomp · 14 days

So why aren't they anti-State privilege for any instead of pro-State privilege for some?

I'm single. I receive no benefits from the State regarding my personal relationships. Why are pro-gay marriage advocates anti-single people? Why are single people considered second-class citizens?

If you're truly pro-equality, you should be pro-free society.

vegetarianBLTG · 14 days

I kind of just look at it as the most moral thing would be to attain your goals as quickly as possible. And I still think the quickest route is through the system.

I'm really not sure how you reconcile expediency with morality. This is just a fancy way of saying "the ends justify the means". That is a very Machiavellian view of human interaction.

the need for some kind of state power to exist with the intent of doing away with itself over time as a pretty good system.

I submit the history of the US government itself. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." State power only expands, never shrinks (unless it collapses under its own weight, or is crushed by an even greater State). The only solution is an intellectual paradigm shift.

Nor do I think those that are most ready to limit government (modern Republicans)

Republicans do not want to limit government. They want power to control other human beings. Don't let the rhetoric of R's or D's or liberals or conservatives fool you into believing otherwise.

the same type of utopian society in mind as I do.

How are you willing to achieve your utopian society? Through reason or force? Do you think the latter will ever achieve a peaceful, free, equal society?

The point is you can have your utopian society without intervention, as long as you grant other people the same privilege to have theirs.

So in the meantime, I think the best way to ensure equality and give people time to get over more of their prejudices is to elect people who are for equality into office.

You can't legislate morality. You can't legislate equality. And you can't legislate away prejudice. No matter how many laws you pass, a behavior or worldview will always find a way to manifest itself. People's perception about the nature of reality must change. You can't do this through force.

Again, you cannot derive equality from inequality, justice from injustice.

political · 14 days

He doesn't support equality, he supports State privileges to certain groups of people; namely, heterosexual and homosexual married couples.

The State giving privileges to certain groups of people is not "equality", it's the antithesis of it. Equality and freedom is the abolition of State-sponsored privilege, not its expansion.

Those who are truly pro-gay marriage and pro-equality should be the advocates of a freed society.

vegetarianBLTG · 14 days

I admire your positions as it seems that you truly want to do good, I just don't think it's realistic at all.

Thank you, and yet just know that people like me see people like you as the unrealistic ones. Politics is a never-ending discourse on who has the "legitimate" claim on coercing their fellow human beings. Politics is a net loss in the story of human civilization. It's still people forcing, through coercion and violence, their will onto other people. That's all it will ever be.

it should perhaps remain in the realm of philosophical discussion for now and focus on making smaller positive movements within the system for now.

That is the debate, and the majority of libertarians would agree with you. I, however, do not separate "philosophy" and pragmatism. If the system itself is what I oppose on moral grounds, I do not see it as impractical for not indulging said system. I know many people see that as idealistic, but I see it as simply as a principled (and, on the contrary, a quite practical) stance for pursuing justice.

What's easier and more practical and realistic: Prostrating yourself before your "betters" for the scant opportunity to be free and the ability to treat other human beings with respect and equality, or just doing it?

vegetarianBLTG · 14 days

I think it's a false dilemma saying you can only appeal to reason or mandate by violence. I put forth, for example, something along the lines of the silent treatment.

I think you're being too pedantic here. That's a voluntary arrangement (no force is being used), so I would put that under the reason category.

If we are to get to a point where everyone loves and shares, then yea, forget government. It would be redundant at that point anyway. But that seems extremely unrealistic to me.

"If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one." -Robert LeFevre

Also, are you an anarcho-capitalist?

I'm a voluntaryist/agorist/free market anti-capitalist.

jjason1985 · 14 days

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

vegetarianBLTG · 14 days

I think you're giving a bit of a false dilemma.

Where?

If you consider all punishment violence, then sure.

Technically all punishment is violence because at some point of resistance, it will come to physical force. Under what circumstances can define whether it is legitimate, or not.

There are ways to enforce equality without active violence.

Please explain.

And even you don't seem to want to totally rid the State.

Yes, I do.

It comes off like LGBT rights just aren't important or valued to you.

Any human being oppressed through coercion by another human being (or group of human beings) is of importance to me.

If you're going to keep the state, why not help with the fight for equality?

The State is predicated upon inequality as an essence of its very existence. You can't fight for justice through injustice.

vegetarianBLTG · 14 days

So what is the action that is going to be taken to help the LGBT community?

The only action that will be taken is the action an individual, or individuals working together voluntarily (i.e., society), will take.

The only way to affect change in this world is by interacting with other people through either 1) an appeal to reason or 2) through a mandate by violence. A society built on the latter is antithetical to a progressive civilization.

So what would be done to rid these inequalities?

The fastest way to make every human being equal is to rid the world of, or at least marginalize, institutionalized violence, force and aggression against other human beings; or, what is commonly referred to as the State.

HXn

TROPHY CASE

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
ComboLinker 2010-02-18

HXn

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login